or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Syfy' HD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Syfy' HD - Page 5

post #121 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod7501 View Post

Maybe that is the problem, they're trying to reinvent Science Fiction and target it to the demographic they want, not to the viewers that actually want to watch it. (or can understand it)

The networks all believe that you want to watch shows like Cleopatra 2525. They don't have brains, so they don't realize that you want to use yours.
post #122 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfxproducer View Post

It's essentially trying to be FOX, a network that could have great original sci-fi programming like X-files, Firefly, Sarah Connor, Fringe, etc, while still dredging the lowest common denomonator reality programming along the lines of 'When Midgets Go Bad'. It's an unfortunate mistake to try to beat FOX at their own game.

I wouldn't compare them to Fox at all. SyFy are trying to capture the same teen market as G4 which is now popular fantasy/SF reruns, cheap game shows with a vaguely futuristic or action based premise, "edgy" reality shows and video game coverage.

Fox is far more classy and intelligent compared to SyFy. And that's not a word I would use to describe them normally.
post #123 of 355
post #124 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrouchoDude View Post

Okay, I see where you're going. I didn't realize Pepsi had passed them. But I do remember people calling it a huge fiasco back then. They said that business classes would use it as a textbook example of a major corporate strategic blunder. Perhaps they have a different take on it now that things seem to have worked out in Coca Cola's favor.

I joined the conversation late, and I think I might be fueling a dead line of argument, but . . .

You need to be able to differentiate the media narrative of the time from the facts. One of the biggest things that sucks in our modern understanding of many events is that the media is always trying to thread a narrative into what are essentially bland stories.
post #125 of 355
Colbert did a good bit on this last night. I'd link, but can't from work.
post #126 of 355
From Fredfa's "Hot Off The Press" thread at the top of the 'HDTV Programming' page:

TV Notes
Sci Fi Channel founder bashes name change
From James Hibberd's Hollywood Reporter 'Live Feed' Blog - March 23, 2009

A co-founder of the Sci Fi Channel is taking offense at NBC Universal's plan to change the network's name.

"SyFy, say it's not so!" writes channel originator Mitch Rubenstein. "What would Isaac [Asimov] have said if the name was instead SyFy Channel? He would have said (we believe): 'That's just plain dumb.'"

Rubenstein, along with his partner Laurie Silvers, were Boca Raton entrepreneurs who conceived of a sci-fi themed cable network, then sold the concept to USA Network in 1991.

Rubenstein and Silvers now own Hollywood.com, where he posted the protest yesterday. The rest of Rubenstein's open letter gives you a pretty clear sense of sci-fi community sensitivity, and if anything should comfort the cable network's executives that this too shall pass. Back in the early '90s, apparently even calling a network the Sci Fi Channel was met with outrage.

You see, there's SF and then there's sci fi -- the former SF is hard science fiction, characterized by factual attention to detail (Arthur C. Clarke, etc.), whereas purists considered the latter sci-fi to be silly stories about wookies. It seems when Rubenstein first announced the channel, hardcore genre fans insisted the channel be called the "SF Channel," but some argued that drawing a broader audience was more important (sound familiar?).

From his letter:

Laurie and I presented the concept of a 24-hour cable TV network dedicated to science fiction to a packed room of SF writers at the Science Fiction Writers of America meeting.

The writers were not happy and that's an understatement. They said they wouldn't watch it. They would oppose it unless we called it the SF Channel because calling it "Sci Fi Channel" was a put-down to the SF genre, as "sci-fi" is slang for SF and science fiction and a huge mistake. And I said if we called it the SF Channel, people would think it's about the city of San Francisco.

I was booed.

Then Isaac started to speak and said that the name had to be Sci Fi Channel and not the SF Channel in order to draw a wide, diverse audience and be successful. To be in a financial position to acquire and produce the best programming. That's really what counts, right? The writers came around and agreed. Heck, it was Isaac Asimov saying "Sci Fi Channel" was OK, and that was that.


http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/03/sci-f...e-change-.html
post #127 of 355
Just noticed that this upcoming Thursday "SyFy" will be airing the pilot episode of Kings.

Probably the start of this turning into just another NBC-U rerun channel. At least if it were Medium there would still be some element of science and/or fiction....but Kings????
post #128 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by petergaryr View Post

Just noticed that this upcoming Thursday "SyFy" will be airing the pilot episode of Kings.

Probably the start of this turning into just another NBC-U rerun channel. At least if it were Medium there would still be some element of science and/or fiction....but Kings????

Is Kings the High-Concept show based on the USA having a monarchy?

Lots of Fi/Fy but no Sci/Sy surely? (Or is this caused by a reversed polarity of the neutron flow?)
post #129 of 355
"Kings" is totally SF. It's an alternate history (or possibly future, according to some views). Plus, strong fantasy elements, in the form of "miracles". I'm happy to see it on the channel formerly known as SciFi.

Unlike wrestling or Law & Order.
post #130 of 355
SCIFI HD, SyFy HD, whatever sucks!! They added this channel this week and I cannot even count how many SD shows I have seen. And what double sucks is they show some programs WINDOWBOXED on the HD channel! That irritates me.

I wish they would pick up "Medium". There are many episodes I haven't seen, or seen in HD. It would be another HD series on the network, and a good one since there's lots of science with Joe's work and fiction with Allison and her dreams. Seems perfect for that channel.
post #131 of 355
I haven't even watched SyFy since BSG went off the air.

I'm waiting for the new fall shows, and Caprica and The Plan of course.
post #132 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by moob View Post

I haven't even watched SyFy since BSG went off the air.

I'm waiting for the new fall shows, and Caprica and The Plan of course.

Same here, though I did notice a Moonlight mini-marathon starting a 7 PM on Thursday. Might DVR something I missed.
post #133 of 355
SyFy?? I wonder what made them decide that the channel name was holding them back, as opposed to the lack of SciFi programming. I suppose everyone has a different idea of what it should be, but I would like to see almost 100% space opera type programming--BSG,Firefly,Farscape, all the variations of Star Trek, Star Gate, etc. Just keep featuring these kinds of shows, maybe a little fantasy on the side--Stephen King's 'The Gunslinger' series would be a great series to make IMHO.
Maybe the economics of this just aren't there. Then again it's hard for me to believe that shows like the above mentioned actually lost money and that SciFi had to supplement it with wrestling.
post #134 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavalierlwt View Post

SyFy?? I wonder what made them decide that the channel name was holding them back, as opposed to the lack of SciFi programming. I suppose everyone has a different idea of what it should be, but I would like to see almost 100% space opera type programming--BSG,Firefly,Farscape, all the variations of Star Trek, Star Gate, etc. Just keep featuring these kinds of shows, maybe a little fantasy on the side--Stephen King's 'The Gunslinger' series would be a great series to make IMHO.
Maybe the economics of this just aren't there. Then again it's hard for me to believe that shows like the above mentioned actually lost money and that SciFi had to supplement it with wrestling.

Let's face it, Bonnie hammer doesn't like real science fiction. That's why she liked Battlestar Galactica, it was more of a "Dark Human Drama" than science fiction. I think she even stated it that way in interviews. (the "more of a Human Drama" part, not my "doesn't like science fiction" comment)

I guess that they hope that viewers will see the bizarre name and not expect actual science fiction on Skiffy.

The problem is that science fiction (especially "Hard Science Fiction") appeals to a fairly small segment of the viewing public. It will never be Mainstream. That's why Skiffy is a cable channel, so that it can program for a smaller audience. The bean counters have lost sight of that and want to attract viewers that fit their desired advertiser's demographic, and that's not Science Fiction fans.

As mentioned, it would be a welcome change if they hired writers who have actually read (or written) Science Fiction. I think that many writers and showrunners are proud of the fact that they have never read any Science Fiction and have stated it in podcasts and interviews.

I really wish that International agreements allowed things like the BBC (not the bastardized BBC America), ITV, Space, etc to appear on US cable systems. (not just specific shows)
post #135 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavalierlwt View Post

SyFy?? I wonder what made them decide that the channel name was holding them back, as opposed to the lack of SciFi programming. I suppose everyone has a different idea of what it should be, but I would like to see almost 100% space opera type programming--BSG,Firefly,Farscape, all the variations of Star Trek, Star Gate, etc. Just keep featuring these kinds of shows, maybe a little fantasy on the side--Stephen King's 'The Gunslinger' series would be a great series to make IMHO.
Maybe the economics of this just aren't there. Then again it's hard for me to believe that shows like the above mentioned actually lost money and that SciFi had to supplement it with wrestling.

The market for that type of pure genre programming just isn't there. I admit, I don't understand it. I look at the struggles FOX's sci-Friday lineup is having attracting an audience and I'm mystified. T:SCC is a particularly good television show on a number of levels, and it can't draw flies. 'Dollhouse' has all kinds of potential, at least in the serialized portion of the show. BSG, in spite of all it's well-deserved critical acclaim, drew less than 2 million, if I'm not mistaken, for it's series finale! 'Charlie Jade' premiered to next to nothing (granted, they didn't promote it ahead of time so nobody knew anything about it), and promptly got exiled to the coveted 2:00AM Tuesday morning slot, presumably bumping an infomercial for ginsu knives. 'Eureka' and 'Ghost Hunters', not to mention 'rasslin', draws more eyeballs on any given night, as do the Saturday night shlock-films.

You'd think the youth of America, raised on video games, would more whole-heartedly embrace "real" science fiction, yet they don't. Most of the posters on the BSG & T:SCC threads, for example, are older boomers (like myself) who were exposed to sci-fi literature when we were younger, and developed a life-long love for the "good stuff". Kids don't read for pleasure anymore; they're not exposed to the Ursula K. Le Guin's, the Poul Anderson's, the Asimovs, the Clarks, the Heinleins, the Ellisons, the Vonneguts. When they get good, serious, high production value sci-fi a la BSG or 'Charlie Jade', they don't understand how rare it is, or appreciate it for what it is. They'd rather watch 'rasslin'. There's no market for the Good Stuff, as Mr. Nielsen keeps telling us over and over again with brutal clarity.
post #136 of 355
I agree, the market is limited realistically to about 1.5 million viewers on a regular basis, but something tells me that they are least making some money on BSG etc. I think the question comes down to making money vs making maximum money. I wish they had different goals then your average business, and cared more about the genre and it's fans, and could live with just doing a little better than breaking even.
post #137 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod7501 View Post

Let's face it, Bonnie hammer doesn't like real science fiction. That's why she liked Battlestar Galactica, it was more of a "Dark Human Drama" than science fiction. I think she even stated it that way in interviews. (the "more of a Human Drama" part, not my "doesn't like science fiction" comment)

I guess that they hope that viewers will see the bizarre name and not expect actual science fiction on Skiffy.

The problem is that science fiction (especially "Hard Science Fiction") appeals to a fairly small segment of the viewing public. It will never be Mainstream. That's why Skiffy is a cable channel, so that it can program for a smaller audience. The bean counters have lost sight of that and want to attract viewers that fit their desired advertiser's demographic, and that's not Science Fiction fans.

As mentioned, it would be a welcome change if they hired writers who have actually read (or written) Science Fiction. I think that many writers and showrunners are proud of the fact that they have never read any Science Fiction and have stated it in podcasts and interviews.

I really wish that International agreements allowed things like the BBC (not the bastardized BBC America), ITV, Space, etc to appear on US cable systems. (not just specific shows)

A couple of comments here...

First of all, Bonnie Hammer can believe what she wants about "Battlestar Galactica", but that show was science fiction by any reasonable definition of the term. Yes, it was also a "human drama" -- but contrary to her perceptions, that is not mutually exclusive with being good science fiction. Good science fiction uses the science to place people that we care about into interesting and challenging situations...just as does any other type of fiction.

Get someone who understands that in charge of a science fiction network, and I think that we'd discover that it can be a very successful niche. It doesn't require abandoning science fiction, but simply understanding what it can be.

Regarding "hard science fiction" -- I think that particular sub-section of science fiction probably is too small to support a mass audience. But much of the rest of science fiction could do very well.
post #138 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

A couple of comments here...

First of all, Bonnie Hammer can believe what she wants about "Battlestar Galactica", but that show was science fiction by any reasonable definition of the term. Yes, it was also a "human drama" -- but contrary to her perceptions, that is not mutually exclusive with being good science fiction. Good science fiction uses the science to place people that we care about into interesting and challenging situations...just as does any other type of fiction.

Get someone who understands that in charge of a science fiction network, and I think that we'd discover that it can be a very successful niche. It doesn't require abandoning science fiction, but simply understanding what it can be.

Regarding "hard science fiction" -- I think that particular sub-section of science fiction probably is too small to support a mass audience. But much of the rest of science fiction could do very well.

Bonnie Hammer is clueless. All anyone needs to ever know about her is her one comment from the Battlestar Galactica special: "I wanted them to have a puppy". It blows my mind she still works for this network. Perhaps we need a letter writing campaign to the Hallmark channel to hire her away.
post #139 of 355
Wow, Bonnie Hammer sounds as incompetent and unfit to run a network as the CW's Dawn Ostroff.

I think the problem here goes higher up if they would let someone run the SCIFI channel who wants to put stuff other than SCIFI on said channel. And with that coming name change, it looks even more like the 'big bosses' want to make another general entertainment channel. I wonder how long until the first L&O: SVU marathon on SyFy?
post #140 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_Davis View Post

Bonnie Hammer is clueless. All anyone needs to ever know about her is her one comment from the Battlestar Galactica special: "I wanted them to have a puppy".

I'm pretty sure that was a joke. A dig at the original that had that stupid dog thing.

And BSG's ratings for the finale were 2.4 million. Since the other 4.5 episodes had some sick Live+7 numbers (like 700,000 or something like that), it's a fair bet that the finale crossed the 3 million mark.

As for SyFy...they still have Eureka. Not my cup of tea, but it does fairly well I think.

And like I said, they have a few new shows coming up soon. There's Caprica next year. Warehouse 13 this summer. And even though I think it's lame now (loved the Gates as a kid, not so much as an adult), I'll probably still check out the new Stargate. Though is it being written/made by the same people who did the first two? Because they've been recycling stories for years now.
post #141 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by moob View Post

As for SyFy...they still have Eureka. Not my cup of tea, but it does fairly well I think.

Eureka strayed pretty far from where I was hoping it would go within about 2 episodes, so I bailed quickly. I never got into it.

Quote:


And like I said, they have a few new shows coming up soon. There's Caprica next year.

Maybe I missed something in the trailers for it, but, to me, Caprica looks like "One Tree Hill" set in the distant future (or maybe that's the distant past, I guess) - teen angst and everything. It seems to bear little resemblance to the type of show that attracted me to BSG in the first place.

As of right now, there's nothing coming up on SciFi (or SyFy, for that matter) that I care to see.
post #142 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Eureka strayed pretty far from where I was hoping it would go within about 2 episodes, so I bailed quickly. I never got into it.

LOL...exactly the same for me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Maybe I missed something in the trailers for it, but, to me, Caprica looks like "One Tree Hill" set in the distant future (or maybe that's the distant past, I guess) - teen angst and everything. It seems to bear little resemblance to the type of show that attracted me to BSG in the first place.

Yeah. I don't think you should really compare the two shows. Have you seen the clips they had floating around the net though? The main characters aren't exactly teens (Esai Morales, Paula Malcomson, Eric Stoltz, Polly Walker), and it seems like a lot of the topics from BSG are going to be covered in Caprica as well (politics, religion, morality etc). When I saw the first trailer, I was sort of "meh" on it as well, but now I'm looking forward to it.
post #143 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by moob View Post

I'm pretty sure that was a joke. A dig at the original that had that stupid dog thing.

Unfortunately it wasn't a joke. It fits with most other things I've heard/seen her say.
post #144 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrouchoDude View Post

I look at the struggles FOX's sci-Friday lineup is having attracting an audience and I'm mystified.

Perhaps because it's on a Friday, one of the lowest-viewing days of the week, and one with an older audience skew since younger people (especially singles) are often not home on Friday evenings.

This has always been a problem for niche shows on the networks. They don't want to schedule them on high-viewing nights because they have other shows they prefer to run to attract large ad revenues. So they schedule the niche shows on nights like Fridays. That would work well if the niche shows target the audience that's available those nights, but often that's not the case.

Quote:


You'd think the youth of America, raised on video games, would more whole-heartedly embrace "real" science fiction, yet they don't.

Maybe they just prefer to play sci-fi videogames rather than watch TV shows? I suspect that the audience for sci-fi skews male, which makes it even harder to build viewership since men 18-24 have become quite scarce in the contemporary television audience. That's why we see more and more channels like G4 or Spike that are designed specifically to appeal to young male audiences that advertisers generally cannot reach outside of sports programming.
post #145 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_Davis View Post

Unfortunately it wasn't a joke. It fits with most other things I've heard/seen her say.

Yep. She didn't "get" FARSCAPE either...perhaps part of the reason it was cancelled even though its ratings were on a par with BSG years earlier. I believe she also turned down FIREFLY when it was looking for a new home.
post #146 of 355
I consider her a big joke. She seems to know nothing about sci fi or cares. Maybe the name change is to get more wrestling into the nightly line up.

There were series that had a big following that she just let go of. I read how she calculates the show on how much it compares to paid ad shows.

I see shows that start off looking good, eurka and then go way out there, I guess trying to always grab new viewers and ignore the ones that were watching.
Soon all of their shows are all over the place and everyone gives up.
post #147 of 355
I know I'd rather play sci-fi videogames.

I only watch ECW wrestling on this channel.
post #148 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post

Perhaps because it's on a Friday, one of the lowest-viewing days of the week, and one with an older audience skew since younger people (especially singles) are often not home on Friday evenings.

Except, aren't the biggest scifi fans generally less likely to be finding a reason to go out on Friday nights...?

And forgive me, but, aren't Monk and Psych, both on Friday, doing well for USA? For that matter, there was this show that was doing relatively well (for a cable show) on some network that claimed to air scifi that was on Fridays up until it's finale recently...

I don't think the day is nearly as much of a problem for people watching as it is finding something decent the networks actually want to put there - and no, the Dollhouse wasn't going to be too many people had already decided not to tune in before the first promo even aired. T:SCC simply lacks people that can act and is too expensive to keep itself on the air when things get lean.
post #149 of 355
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Except, aren't the biggest scifi fans generally less likely to be finding a reason to go out on Friday nights...?

And forgive me, but, aren't Monk and Psych, both on Friday, doing well for USA? For that matter, there was this show that was doing relatively well (for a cable show) on some network that claimed to air scifi that was on Fridays up until it's finale recently...

I don't think the day vis nearly as much of a problem for people watching as it is finding something decent the networks actually want to put there.

I mean I would think majority of people in their 20's that actually watch tv have a DVR. So it wouldn't really matter to much what day it's on. 99% of the time i watch DVRed recordings. Hardly ever watch live tv.
post #150 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-I-G-I-T-A-L View Post

I know I'd rather play sci-fi videogames.

I only watch ECW wrestling on this channel.

That explains a lot.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Syfy' HD